Yes, but an official apology, after passing a law that negates the previous one (along with any convictions that were judged), does indeed seem to say, "We're sorry we did this, and we will no longer do this (until yet another law is passed)." Note that the caveat is always in place with politicians. Also, it should be noted, especially in places like the U.S., that apologies are generally shied away from, becasue they're often translated as, "We've admitted we made a mistake - let the lawsuits begin!"

People like you amuse me. "If you don't think like me, you don't have free will." It reminds me of the 'rebels', usually teenage, who are supposedly thinking for themselves and rejecting society's norms. And then they all dress the same...

People may be more, less, or just as greedy as the corporations. The distinct difference is, the corporations as a general rule have more power (read: money) to enforce their desires than do most people.

No, it's another way of saying that the average mechanic takes six hours, and people who are really experienced (and have specialized tools) can do it in one.

This isn't really any different than having multiple pay grades for different levels of capability in, say, programming. Sure, the new guy can do it in a week, what with all the testing because of little mistakes that he can easily fix once they show up, among other things. The seasoned hand, who's seen this problem before, and has his own specialized tools, takes care of it in a afternoon. For some reason, they pay more per hour for the second guy, and pass those additional costs to the customer one way or another (usually billing the week that the newb would have taken at newb rates, or charging 'specialist' rates for fewer hours).

The big difference between the two situations is that the mechanic industry has a book for shop rates, and the programming industry doesn't even have to task listing yet.

On the other hand, it's only been the last 60 years or so where one loonie could destroy the world all by himself. And even now, it's still pretty difficult.

The difference is, numbers aren't a physical thing, whereas planets are. Unless you're stating that the physics that allowed the earth to form are so unique that they couldn't happen on accident, then it's possible it happened twice. This may change one of the assumed constants of the Drake Equation, but the possibility would have to be infinitesimal for it to have happened only once in our galaxy, let alone in the universe. Of course, 14 billions years is a long time, and 10,000 divides into it quite a bit, so it's possible the circumstances happened more than once and we still wouldn't meet any other civilizations.

The bullshit you're smelling is probably of a political nature. Hard to build a plant in a country where the government says no.

Given that about 80% of Americans live in an urban area, the GGP is correct for the vast majority of Americans. Now, we know why the GP has bad service, but what about the other 80%? Do they in fact have decent service? Is it terribly expensive compared to other similar regions? If so (and I expect the answer is no to the first question and yes to the second), why?

Technically, zero, for both. One is an office building, the other is a hole to dig resources out of.Both are doubtless a warren of tunnels that people pass through daily. You were looking for the technical answer, right? Because the realistic answer is that both could be converted to living space with varying amounts of difficulty. Mines (and office buildings) have been converted to residential facilities before.

Your statement is correct from the man's perspective. Until the last two hundred years, what made sense from the woman's perspective? A partner who could provide food, shelter, and protection until the child's safety was no longer a significant burden on the mother. Monogamy, at least for a period of time, makes sense from the mother's perspective.

No one said the evolutionary drives for both sexes had to be the same. Assuming such is a critical flaw.